DA 950 
.3 
.W3 








o * A 




A A s * A <\ 'o . * 

C 0 o ■» ^ o * 1 ' " A, *&p O v c o-.. ■ q 

*^6* ®/*v^l[\- ^ 0 'f4!/^>~\ ^ a 


vr-% 

** A A 

* * . G* *o '^f^' 
$ „ „ „ 


A 



"o K 


0c V f 0 ' 

" T * °- o ,0 , 

♦ Asg ,A, ^ <A * 

* ^MJ/h o ^ S S 

0 * v< * • 

* ^ > - 



o' 




^ Imxx _ o o* 

% «r 

* ° * ° ° «A 

^ V n * “ - 



^ A 




A 


v <A * ° • * 

» A ' o <r> 

X* * 

^ A" ' * y « " ^^VIYV 

o v . ^ o x 0 OaPW 




< o n* 

» v* 

O X* j* 

<i» v 
<$> * 



» t v/'> 

** a "A - ^ , - * . 

^ %'-”•' .\> <4 

c° .aa °o A ,>-a* : . ^ 

• ‘*/a^*.* a 0 * 


^4 ^ 



X* «r 

<K A A‘ 

0 * 0 * v 



O ♦ A 


• A A 

<* A \ 



<y. 


• *>-v • 

* 4> V - 


o ’A.'VA A 


<A vP_ 

•WV A ^ • 



A 


•0 V c<A°* o 


$ 





^ *' 


fi-u<;.-/' - -*• o' 


* / 1 




A\ * » « 0 ° 



* A> 



-A ^ S ' 




A V "V * 



A 




0 


*> rS ^ 

/ ,<£ \ 4. 



o .A s ^ A 


* A x ^ ° 





->v A 


0 



* ^ <e 

0 V 


C 



A' <V *° * * ’ 

t * 1 ' * * ^ r 0^ o 

v A .'ifife'. -n#, « u -A 

o V . ^ ^ <y ° 





^ ^MUXNXX ® ^ ^ V ^ 

..., ^‘•■•’ y A- *•'■’• A° V ^ 

^ V f’*°- cv ,0 s 4 '.’ % O’ 

v* A v ♦ rfCC«« A p ^ O * ^ O ♦ 

^ ^ J o * o vP 

v v *jw!* ^ 


. 0< ^ 
A c> . ^ 



^ /• j yj 

* 


O « A 


o ^7'-*.* A 



■0 V c °_" ° •* <5 



k V 


O. ' .. s s A 



* 


t • o 



o ^5 ^4 

^ WSUVVXXNp ^ 

% ‘"’’A 0 ,.., V'**-'** y A ‘*• -• ’ A *- '« 

.^a- ^ <»• ^ ^ .Wa* A A **’ 

.^? A'V • y^vw/0? ° y s s 

° a'A o t/^*A\\V • C S vr*^ A^.4.»Ai? \. > * 

* <v > -yjc^* ^ v/ a 






V V <A» O , JL • 0 O ^ 

A^ t * l !A* ^ * 0 ^ o 0 " ° * * * 0 V • 4 ' 4 * ^ * * (V 



• A ^ . 4,0 A / °- 

,.., v. •••“ A °*. ••■'•A 0 A'*A»- o 

A ^ V f 1 * A c\ A V , S *A'* O -v 


. oj5 w 

-^5 


• ^ ^ .Wa’« a ^ s>. 


« • o 


O * 4 ^ 

° 4 - *■ 










vv * * 




O » A 


o 

o . 

v\ «<. c. 

«ipV V V - 

r 0 V c'"% *b . ... ^> n > oWo 

-y 0 • r^l^S^Vv - 1 * O j'P’ 1 rt^-t f 0 C * O 

' A - • <^\\'t\'A * <N f J?//7/V'xS *7 G • -H^Tv O 

+P c ' ~ 

^ * V* o' ° ^ 






- “ 

<£• ■"» *»V \*- o 

<p- * o * o 0 - 0 , 4 o * 

^ \ V ^ 







V 


y • o 


■- •• 


*• 

- ■<* /y S 
° : 

^’'V C? ^r. 

"'•• sS A <V <0^ ^ % v 

,N ♦ VvT/^* c° .° r H^Vv' r ^ °o 1 ^ i 

vX -*£► *- * +P « ' <SN\\\Tf^^ \N + 

oV • / o X <*d- 


» i i 



,0 



\0 v* * ^ 

> v <£“ « 

^ Pv X. *n 

’ *° 

o .0 s s ' * ^ \> 

- ^ *vdB&£\ *> 

: ^ g s • 

* 

s <y <* * 

s * \Y* <s '° * * * a G> 

^ ^ r 0^ 0 

"* T* « c '■< 

^ CT ,° ^ 

; <?°^ **£ 

• «.y o 

0 -.V O * 



<^r ,<$> ''€$$&'- t<. > *’ 


t • o 


o v c ®_: c * o 


^o 4 



* 

V* 'o.»-* 0^ v o ^ 

v ' 8 -t T J > * o w o 

i t' t ^ /• X) c •» O 

»N «■ J5-> tf/7?-> y -r ^ O 

O V . £ -< V* Q X o 





C\ ^ I'lS^ i J ^ V 

<U 9,1 A° * 

► ’ • °' S* A° ^ > 

„ V s . /(, y’ V ^ » 




<A 


o K 



^ ?. S * A 



o ^ °o 

'■*’ ^ %'*•-•’ ^0- - 


* r ^ ' 
v*^ - * 


c S vT 

^ <y ^ 

• ^ ^ < <iy \i+ 
<s *° • A * 

I ' • - <?» aV „ (* c ^ 



A ■% ^ /a 

vJ* b 





5 a\ T ^ a G ^ 

. >■ ' * ^ pi V , 

1 y 1 i _/2_ /* 0 C 



x* 

...•* 0* ■ ♦- 


■'-o 1 * :<sfia". "bt- 


v*. ' v^M^Xa ’ 4 o 

* pi V ><- rf>^IIW vxn^ » » v ^ «. <^/sy/ \)je > ? vy 

i> *...• y © y ^ 

-X^ ^ V v p T • °p c* 

V S^%r. *. 4, ^ 






k0 


V, 


^ «? ^ 

<v '•.»- A 0^ - 

l,# * ^ ,0 V c 09 ^ % 

V G • c ^5^Tv..w 8 o 

* c. ■» 

^ ^ 0 V 

w ^ > 

- A 4.^ O 

* O H o 0 <*> O . 






a\' ^ 'o.^ 0 V 

y *• X4,' ^ ,-0^ o« 

- ^ o 

; / 

<1 t v o 

^ A A 0 A V PA 


"o K 



'‘'-A 


<o r\ 


/C ^ 




J 


y • o 


























' c 

v »-t 


6 


t. 


—J-T It 

// ^ 
V c, 




>t 


A’/S. 


/ 


x* ■ 


f- 4- 


.X- 1 


/ 

S 


? <■ ■-" 


^V' < — 

y . S ? 

y\j* f. - /■> 




TO KAAON KPEITTON, 

OR 

THE CONDUCT 


»■ , 




OF THE 

DUKE OF WELLINGTON’S ADMINISTRATION, 

AND OF THE MAJORITIES OF THE 

TWO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT, 

RELATIVE TO 

Cfte Catftoltc dBm&txon, 

PROVED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH JUSTICE, SOUND POLICY, AND 

INDIVIDUAL GOOD FAITH; 


MORE PARTICULARLY ADDRESSED TO THE 

MEMBERS OF THE SENATE OF THE UNIVERSITY 

OF CAMBRIDGE. 


By ARTHUR S. WADE, D.D. 

• i ' 


VICAR OF ST. NICHOLAS, WARWICK, AND A MEMBER OF ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE, 

CAMBRIDGE. 


Justum, et tenacem propositi virum. 

Non civium ardor prava jubentium, 

Mente quatit solida. 

Hor. lib. iii. Carm. 3. 

Fallitur egregio quisquis sub principe credit 
Servitium: nunquam libertas gratior extat 
Quam sub Rege pio. Quos prasficit ipse regendis 
Rebus, ad arbitrium plebis patrumque reducit: 

Conceditque libens, mentis seu praemia poscant, 

Seu punire velint. 

De Secundo Cons. Stilich. Carm. 24, 1. 113. 
Claudiani Opera. Pyrrho. Vid . Fath. in Pr. Ch. 


LONDON: 

JOSEPH BOOKER, BOND STREET. 


1829. 



" J'iJL cT£. jY ) tAcy Vu 




L\\ 




* p 


! *“* 






I 


DA^so 

,W3 




j.' or c 


7 ' T ■ ' • 

j . .-i'- • • 





LONDON: 

W. MOLINEUX, ROLLS PRINTING OFFICE, ROLLS 
BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE. 

• - • * - t • • ’ * . ... «. 




/ 



• > [ 4 » 

.r,l . * i V" 3 






* 








THE CONDUCT 


OF THE 


DUKE OF WELLINGTON’S 
ADMINISTRATION. 


The friends of the Bill,, now happily passed 
into a law, for the relief of our Catholic fellow 
subjects, were divided into two classes,—those, 
who advocated the measure on the ground of 
right, and those who considered it merely as po¬ 
litically expedient. For my own part, I have 
always been found among those, who advocated 
Catholic emancipation as a matter of right, and 
“ through good report and through evil report/' I 
have ever considered it my duty, both as a friend 
to my own church, and a lover of civil and reli¬ 
gious liberty, to bear my humble testimony in 
favour of a cause, which has ranked among its 
supporters some of the greatest orators, states¬ 
men, and divines that have adorned the page of 
history. 

a 2 





4 


Amongst these I can not help mentioning two 
individuals, with one of whom I had the honour 
and happiness of living for many years upon 
terms of the greatest intimacy; I allude to the 
late revered and venerable Dr. Parr and the 
immortal Johnson; men who, though differing 
in political opinions, concurred in their love of 
our Protestant institutions, and in deprecating 
the treatment which Ireland, or rather the Irish 
Catholics, had experienced at the hands of the 
English government. Johnson and Parr may 
be looked upon as two of the most distinguished 
amongst the characters of an age just passed 
away—two of the most illustrious of a mighty 
race of men, who have gone to their reward, but 
whose works live after them ; and I am induced 
to refer to their authority in the question under 
consideration, for the purpose of reminding those 
amongst my reverend brethren, who differ from 
me in opinion, that I have not acted without good 
examples, as well as for the purpose of paying a 
tribute of respect to the memory of my friend 
Parr, who would have rejoiced had he lived to 
see this day. 

Before, however, I take leave of this part of 
my subject, I may perhaps be allowed to quote, 
from a work whose authenticity has never been 
questioned, Boswell's Lifeof Johnson, the opinion, 
which that great writer entertained with regard 


to Ireland. Though this work is in the hands of 
every one, yet I have not seen the passage I am 
about to transcribe brought forward in support 
of the cause of Catholic emancipation, and there¬ 
fore, without farther apologv, 1 will take the liberty 
of laving it before my readers, feeling convinced, 
that by so doing, I shall at once bespeak the 
attention of the unconvinced, and add a powerful 
testimony in favour of the cause, which I have 
presumed to advocate:— 

r * • 

“The Irish,” said Johnson, ff are in a most 
unnatural state; for we see there the minority 
prevailing over the majority. There is no in¬ 
stance, even in the ten persecutions, of such seve¬ 
rity, as that which the Protestants of Ireland have 
exercised against the Catholics. Did we tell 
them we have conquered them, it would be above 
board: to punish them by confiscation and other 
penalties, as rebels, was monstrous injustice. 
Kina’ William was not their lawful sovereign; he 
had not been acknowledged by the Parliament of 
Ireland, when they appeared in arms against 

him. ,, 

S / 

If the two great authorities that I have just 
quoted should not be thought a sufficient apology 
for any opinion that so humble an individual as 
myself may hold, I will quote anothei. I will 
quote a divine, to whose name no epithet can 


6 


add honour—to whose virtues no language can 
add praise. 1 allude to Henry Bathurst—the 
aged, the excellent, and the venerable Bishop 
of Norwich. 

In offering these observations in defence of his 
Majesty’s ministry, I am aware, that I render 
myself liable to the double charge of vanity and of 
improper motives. I trust, however, that I am not 
actuated by either—but certain I am, that I have 
no improper object in view. I am desirous of 
convincing those, who have formed an ill opinion 
of the present government relative to their conduct 
on the Catholic question, more particularly my 
brother electors of the University of Cambridge, 
that that opinion is unjust,—and this, after what 
has been so ably said by others, may be called 
vanity; but my principal object is to shew, what 
I conceive it is the duty of every one to shew, 
who feels conscious, that a great good has been 
achieved for his country, that I feel grateful to 
those, by whose exertions that good has been 
effected. I also think, that now, when men’s 
passions are no longer excited by the agitation of 
the question, they will be more capable of calmly 
considering it, and more likely to judge justly of 
the conduct of his Majesty’s government. 

As I have said before, the friends of the Catho¬ 
lic Relief Bill were divided into two classes,— 


7 


those who advocated the measure on the ground 
of right, and those, who considered it merely as 
politically expedient. Amongst the latter class 
of politicians may be ranked those of his Majesty’s 
ministers, who were on former occasions adverse 
to the measure. Now, to show that a measure, 
like the one under consideration, is politically 
expedient, it is necessary to prove, that the state 
would have sustained a greater injury, from its 
being withheld, than from its being granted, and 
this is my object on the present occasion. In 
adopting this line of argument, I concede to the 
opponents of the measure, that the Catholics had 
no right to the possession of political power, an 
opinion, which is held by many great and good 
men, but which, I scarcely need repeat, I do not 
hold. 

» 

In the first place I would observe, that the 
Catholics of Ireland have not only been tolerated, 
but have been in possession of political power for 
many years. All, therefore, that has been said 
relative to the opinion of such men as Milton, 
Locke, and Goethe, on the propriety of not tole¬ 
rating Catholicism at all, on the ground that it is 
intolerant, and that no toleration is due to those, 
who will not tolerate, is not applicable to the present 
question, unless indeed it should be advanced, 
that it would be advisable to undo all, that has 
been done for Ireland in this respect, and proclaim 


V 


8 


at once a war of extermination against the Catho¬ 
lics—for it is obvious, that not to tolerate the 
Catholic religion in Ireland would be in effect, to 
destroy the Catholics. The most zealous anti¬ 
catholics, however, have never advanced a doc¬ 
trine of this kind, and consequently his Majesty’s 
ministers were perfectly justified in discarding 
such a sanguinary measure altogether from their 
consideration. I think I may take it for granted, 
even at the risk of being accused of begging the 
question, that Ireland had arrived at that state in 
which something must have been done. This, I 
believe, was generally, nay, I may say, universally 
acknowledged; the question, therefore, for the 
consideration of the government, was, what that 
something should be. To undo all that their pre¬ 
decessors had done was out of the question— 
they could not go back, and without being armed 
with extraordinary powers, which the Parliament, 
it is fair to presume after what had taken place, 
would not have armed them with, they could not 
remain where they were. It is the duty of gover¬ 
nors to make the best of circumstances, and when 
they see two inevitable evils before them, to yield 
to that, which is likely to be productive of the least 
ill consequences. “All consultations,” says Lord 
Bacon, “do rest upon questions comparative: for, 
when a question is de vero , it is simple, for there is 
but one truth; but when a question isdebono,\t is 
for the most part, imperative, for there be differing 


9 


degrees of good and evil, and the best of good is 
to be preferred and chosen, and the ivorst of evil 
to be declined and avoided. 5 * Ireland had been 
brought to such a state of insubordination, by 
means, which the government had no power to ar¬ 
rest, that the choice only was left to them, either to 
yield to the demand of Catholic emancipation, or, 
with a House of Commons favorable to the Irish 
claims, suffer the country to break out into open 
rebellion, and then oppose force to force. This 
was a consummation most devoutly to be depre¬ 
cated—a consummation which would have armed 
the disaffected in England with a fearful power— 
which would have gone near to have shaken the 
state to its dissolution,—and which would, at a 
time that Russia is making fearful strides in her 
gigantic march of ambition, have rendered us 
absolutely contemptible in the eyes of the great 
European powers. 

VI i * f * ( 4 

Those, who have opposed the granting of 
Catholic emancipation, have uniformly taken it 
for granted, that Parliament would have unhesi¬ 
tatingly armed the government with sufficient 
authority to have put down the Irish “agitators, 55 
but this by no means follows. It could not have 
been done, in my opinion, without a suspension 
of the Habeas Corpus Act, and had the govern¬ 
ment asked for such suspension, it is fair to 
presume, that that House of Commons, who the 


10 


year before had voted in favour of emancipation, 
would have replied, ff No; grant that which is 
the just rights of the Irish people, and the agita¬ 
tors will cease to exist.” But it has been said, 
that the laws of the land would have been suffi¬ 
cient, had they been acted upon, to have brought 
to justice the demagogues, as they were called, 
of the Catholic Association. Now the only way 
in which those persons could have been proceeded 
against was, bringing them before a jury of their 

country. We all know, however, the great influ- 

* 

ence, which they possessed over the minds of the 
people, particularly over the Catholics, who, to a 
man, thought they were fully justified in their 
proceedings; more than one half of the Protes¬ 
tants was of the same opinion; and it is a question 
with me whether the remainder, providing juries 
had been selected from them, which would have 
been contrary to law, would have dared to have 
convicted even the most audacious among the 
“agitators,” many of whom, I am willing to 
allow, had unquestionably, in their speeches, 
violated the laws. 

In this view of the subject, I am borne out by 
the documents, which have been laid before Par¬ 
liament by the Marquis of Anglesea. It appears 
from these documents, that it was the unanimous 
opinion of the law officers of Ireland, that no con¬ 
viction could have been obtained; and unless we 


11 


are prepared to say,, what I should think few men 
could be so unjust as to say, that those indivi¬ 
duals violated their oaths, and conspired with the 
“ agitators/’ we are bound to conclude, that what 
has been here advanced, on this subject, is correct. 
It has, however, been argued, that because juries 
Were found, after the last rebellion to convict the 
guilty parties, that therefore juries might have 
been found on recent occasions to have done the 
same. But it should be recollected, that there 
is no parallel between the two periods. Then 
the Catholics were beaten and dispirited, without 
money or organization; the government was 
armed with absolute power, and the whole em¬ 
pire had been shocked by the atrocities of the 
rebels. Nothing of the kind existed in the pre¬ 
sent case; the Catholics were in a complete state 
of organization, with large funds at their disposal, 
and actually waging a successful moral rebellion 
in every part of the country against the consti¬ 
tuted authorities. Besides, they had done nothing 
to shock the feelings of the people of England, 
except perhaps the uttering of violent speeches; 
they had been guilty of no outrages; they had 
shed no Protestant blood. 

Nothing could more strikingly illustrate the 
fearful power, which the Association had ob¬ 
tained over the fierce passions of the peasantry, 
than the conduct of that peasantry at the Clare 


election. During the whole of that contest not 
a single person was seen intoxicated, and not a 
single outrage, that I am aware of, was committed; 
nor was the display of power confined to the 
instance now before us; it was extended over 
all the Irish Catholics. To superficial obser¬ 
vers this may be considered of little importance; 
but by those, who are acquainted with the desper¬ 
ate, and reckless character of the lower orders of 
Irish, when under strong excitement, it will be 
justly considered as one of the most striking 
instances of power over a whole people ever 
displayed. What might not then the Catholic 
Association, and the Catholic priesthood, possess¬ 
ing as they did such authority, have effected ? I 
answer, any thing, that it was in the power of 
five millions of people, situated as the Irish were, 
to have effected. They that could so far have 
subdued the passions of a peasantry, who never 
met without drinking, and who never drank 
without contention, it is quite obvious might have 
directed them in open warfare against the govern¬ 
ment, had they thought proper to have done it. 
Nay, there can be no doubt, that the Irish pea¬ 
sant had some ulterior object of insurrection in 
view, when he thus submitted himself to the 
authority of those, who had assumed the office 
of his leaders. Was it not, then, good policy on 
the part of government to take from him his 
leaders; to convert those, who cherished his 


13 


visionary schemes of insurrection against the 
state, into the friends of the state? 

It is probable, as has been observed, that the 
account, which Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald gave, after 
his return from the Clare election, of the organ¬ 
ization, that had been effected among the Irish 
peasantry, convinced the government, that some¬ 
thing must be done, either in the way of coercion, 
or conciliation, to prevent Catholic members 
from being returned, in the event of a new elec¬ 
tion, for almost every county and open borough 
in Ireland. Certain it is, that the priests and 
the Association had obtained a complete ascen¬ 
dancy over the minds of the people; they had 
made a most violent and indiscreet peasantry as 
orderly as a regiment of well-disciplined soldiers. 
Even their habits of drinking, they had prevailed 
upon them to lay aside, and thus an Irish election, 
instead of being a scene of confusion and out¬ 
rage, was rendered as quiet and as well conducted 
as a conventicle of Methodists. These things, 
apparently so desirable in themselves, very natur¬ 
ally caused alarm in the minds of the members of 
the government. As long as the Irish peasantry 
continued a riotous and an undisciplined mob, it 
was easy to deal with them. It was easy to repel 
brute force by brute force more ably directed; 
but when moral force was presented in opposition 
to the government, it had to deal with something, 
not to he resisted by arms. 


14 


In all former contests between the government 
of England and the Irish Catholics, a large por¬ 
tion of the latter were either neutral, or on the 
side of the state; but in the late moral rebellion, 
for such in reality it was, this was not the case. 
This change in the state of things has been attri¬ 
buted, I think, properly, to the instituting of the 
forty-shilling freeholders, and of a system of 
national police, both of which were intended to 
operate in precisely the opposite way in which 
they have operated. The national police not 
only tranquillised Ireland, so far as partial risings 
against the constituted authorities were con¬ 
cerned, but it also rendered difficult the organ¬ 
ising of any general insurrection. The con¬ 
sequence was, it drove the people into another 
and a more safe kind of opposition to the govern¬ 
ment, the nature of which is too well known 
to be here dwelt upon in detail. This oppo¬ 
sition was perfectly free from danger to 
all the parties concerned in it; and thus the 
Irish Catholic gentry, who had been heretofore 
kept aloof by the fear of compromising them¬ 
selves, hesitated not to take a part in it as the 
prominent actors. When insurrection was the 
sort of opposition put forth against the govern¬ 
ment, no man of property dared heartily espouse 
the Catholic cause, for fear of being implicated 
in a charge, either directly or indirectly, of rebel¬ 
lion. One of the most efficient instruments in 
the hands of the advocates of emancipation was 


15 


the forty-shilling freeholder, a voter, who had been 
created for no other purpose than to throw power 
into the hands of the landholder, and by that 
means strengthen the government. Thus two 
measures, which were intended to assist the ruling 
party, were actually brought, by management 
and force of circumstances, to bear against it, 
till at length government thought it most pru¬ 
dent to yield; not, however, he it recollected, 
without depriving the forty-shilling freeholders 
of their votes. 

But it may be said, that the national police 
has not tranquillised Ireland, and the daily out¬ 
rages, which are now being committed, may be 
instanced in support of the assertion. It should 
be recollected, however, that these outrages are 
not of a political nature; that they are not 
directed against the government, or carried on 
for the purpose of bringing about any political or 
religious change; that they are, for the most part, 
directed by Catholic against Catholic, and that 
they therefore do not affect my argument.—In¬ 
deed they rather support it, inasmuch as the 
existence of such quarrels among themselves 
proves, that they are meditating nothing against 
t he government. 

r , \ ' • ■ *'_*•( * 

Having thus glanced at the state to which 
Ireland had been brought by the “agitators — 


16 


having shewn something of what they did do, I 
come now to make a few observations upon what 
they threatened to do. In the first place, then, 
they threatened to forbid Catholics from dealing 
or holding any kind of intercourse with Protes¬ 
tants; and there can be no doubt that if emanci¬ 
pation had not been granted, this measure,—a 
measure, which would have gone near to involve 
the country in a civil war, would have been 
carried into effect. No one can doubt, that they 
had power to enforce this measure,—and least of 
all will any one doubt, that they had the will. 

If the non-intercourse plan was thus fraught 
with such terrific consequences, what shall we 
say of the scheme for putting a stop to the circu¬ 
lation of bank notes in Ireland, or in other words, 
for making a grand run upon the national bank? 
Why, that such scheme, if carried into effect,— 
and under the circumstances, it was perfectly 
feasible—must have led to the suspension of cash 
payments in Ireland, and if in Ireland probably 
in England; and thus we should have been pro¬ 
claimed to the world as a nation of bankrupts. 
Nor would this have been the worst part of the 
evil. It would have put a stop, at least for 
a time, to all sorts of business, — it would 
have left the tradesman without customers, and 
the labourer without bread. Can such a state 
of things be contemplated without horror, and 


17 


v 


would not that government have deserved the 
execration of the country, that did not do all 
that could be done, to guard against it? The 
state of the population at this moment, in the 
north of E ngland, and in the manufacturing part 
of the metropolis, affords a feeble, and only a 
feeble idea of the horrors, that would every where 
take place, under any great disarrangement of 
our financial system.* 

It is very natural for a clergyman, in a remote 
part of the country, living retired amongst his 
flock—unacquainted with what is going on in 
the great world, except through the medium of 
interested newspaper writers, who live by feeding 
his prejudices—it is very natural for such a man, 
looking with horror upon the superstitions and 
cruelties that have prevailed, and, if you like, do 
prevail, amongst Catholics to consider all those, 
who listened to the complaints of the Irish Catho¬ 
lics as enemies to their country, and apostates 
from religion. But such worthy, and frequently, 
in other respects, well informed individuals, do 
not reflect, that dangers might exist of a nature 
with which they were unacquainted; they do not 
reflect that, at the very moment they were dreading 
some remote evil from Catholic power, those very 

* I am borne out in this view of the subject by an admi¬ 
rable article in the last Quarterly Review, on the “State and 
Prospects of the Country.” 


B 


18 


» 


Catholics possessed a power* if they chose to act 
upon it* sufficient to shake the safety of the empire 
to its very centre. 

V 

Let me not be misunderstood. Let no one 
imagine* that I consider our financial system 
built upon a foundation of sand* and liable to be 
overthrown by the mere breath of popular cla¬ 
mour. I do not believe any such thing. On 
the contrary* I think nothing but the most gross 
ignorance on the part of the legislature* or the 
most determined opposition on the part of an 
immense mass of the population* could seriously 
atfect it, or at least affect it to such a degree as 
materially to disturb the order of society. But the 
Catholic Association had the power (and they were 
the only body of men that ever had it* or are likely 
to have it again) to put into activity that opposition 
which I contemplate* and though it would have 
involved the country in great difficulty* and dis¬ 
tress* they were so maddened by the withholding 
from them* what they considered* their just rights* 
that there is no doubt they would have done it. 
In times of order* and under the rule of a wise 
government* a country has nothing serious to fear 
from a national debt; for it is idle to suppose* that 
a nation can be ruined* though it may be involved 
for the moment*by being indebted to itself. Speak¬ 
ing of the national debt in his time* Dr. Johnson 
said, ff it was an idle dream to suppose* that the 


19 


country could sink under it. Let the public cre¬ 
ditors be ever so clamorous, the interest of millions 
must ever prevail over that of thousands/’ This 
is perfectly true, though it supposes an alternative, 
which I should be sorry to see resorted to, namely, 
a sacrifice of the stock-holder in favour of the 
proprietors of other descriptions of property. 

But to return to the question more immediately 
under discussion.—It may be said, that if the 
Irish Catholics possessed the power of putting 
into requisition such formidable weapons for the 
attainment of Catholic emancipation, why should, 
they not use them for the attainment of ulterior ob¬ 
jects, such as making Catholicism the established 
faith, and taking from the Protestants the church 
property. I answer, in the first place, that they 
no longer possess that power; that the granting 
of emancipation has dissolved that union from 
which the power was derived, and, that there is 
no probability of its ever being re-established. 
The union of which I speak was the work of 
years. If the Catholics were to set about re-es¬ 
tablishing such a union for the attainment of 
other objects, under the most favourable circum¬ 
stances that can be supposed, it could not be 
effected for a great length of time. Besides, 
when men are once put upon an equality with 
their fellow subjects, particularly a minority like 
the Catholics, it is ridiculous to suppose, that they 

b 2 




20 


will unite together for the purpose of obtaining a 
superiority, and still more ridiculous to imagine, 
that the majority will quietly look on, and not 
put a stop to their machinations. 

The removal of Catholic disabilities, in my 
opinion, will operate favorably to the interests of 
protestantism; at any rate it will unite the Pro¬ 
testants as one man against the catholics, should 
they not be content with that equality of rights, 
which they have obtained. As Mr. Peel observed 
in the House of Commons, in one of his speeches 
on this question, ff Come what may of the measure 
itself, if hereafter the Roman Catholics attempt to 
trench on the authority of the crown, or to attack 
any institutions of the country, the measure of 
relief dealt out to them will serve to rebuke and 

9 

to defeat every effort, that may be made by them.” 

The feeling which was displayed throughout 
the country, in opposition to the Catholic Relief 
Bill, though founded upon false apprehensions, 
and therefore very properly not suffered to in¬ 
fluence the legislature, was, I have no hesitation 
in saying, highly gratifying to me as a Christian 
and a clergyman of the Established Church; that 
feeling shewed, beyond the possibility of doubt, 
that the people, the great mass of the nation, had 
neither become infected with infidelity, nor with 
indifference to the cause of the Protestant Church 

to 

V 


21 


Establishment; it shewed that the sentiment of 
church and king was still engraven on their 
hearts—that it was the motto of their dearest 
affections. With such a people, my clerical 
brethren, I ask, if we do our duty, can we have 
any thing to fear, either from the splendid super¬ 
stitions of the Homan church, or the specious 
sophistry of the dissenter? No! let the church 
of England be true to herself—let the legislature, 
as the present able, learned, and excellent Bishop 
of London implored, give her discipline, and she 
may defy all open attacks from without, and all 
covert ones from within. 

It has been apprehended by some persons, that 
the Catholics will, in conjunction with the dis¬ 
senters, become formidable in their opposition to 
the temporalities of the church. In my humble 
opinion this is an idle fear. As a body, the 
Catholics never will sanction the appropriation of 
church property to secular purposes. It would 
be inconsistent with the tenets of their religion, 
and would be discouraged by the heads of their 
church, if only upon the score of example. To 
me it appears quite certain, that no farther union 
can subsist between the Catholics and the dis¬ 
senters—for they are in their feelings and belief 
as far as the poles asunder. 

An objection has been raised to the granting 


of Catholic emancipation, on the ground that it 
was the result of intimidation. Now, taking it 
for granted that such was the case, I ask, what 
then? Oh, I shall be told, it was highly dero¬ 
gatory to the King’s government to yield to fear, 
to suffer themselves to be frightened into a mea¬ 
sure by a rebellious faction. Precisely just such 
language as this was used when the Americans 
refused to acknowledge the right of the British 
Parliament to impose taxes upon them, and unfor- 
tunatelv for our common country, such unmean- 
ing verbiage prevailed. We all know the result; 
we all know that the king’s government nobly 
determined not to be intimidated—not to yield to 
a faction—that faction, by the way, like the 
Irish faction, consisting of at least four-fifths of 
the whole people,—and the fruit of their noble 
daring was the loss of our North American colo¬ 
nies; and not merely the loss of these colonies, 
but the raising up of a people, who would have 
gladly continued the subjects of the British 
crown, into a great and powerful rival nation— 
a nation that not only is capable of competing, 
but actually does compete with the parent state 
in every quarter of the world. Happy would it 
have been for Great Britain, if the government of 
that day had not disdained to yield that to inti¬ 
midation, which was just. Happy if the country 
had had a minister like the illustrious Wellington, 
who had the magnanimity to exclaim, ff To avoid 


23 


one month of civil war I would willingly sacrifice 
my 1 iTe. ’^ But the sentiments of the noble duke, 
on the occasion alluded to, are so admirable, are 
so applicable to the subject, which I am now 
treating, that I cannot help transcribing them. 

“1 am one of those,” said the Duke of Wel¬ 
lington, “who have probably passed a longer 
period of my life engaged in war than most men, 
and principally, I may say, in civil war; and I 
must say this, that if I could avoid, by any sacri¬ 
fice whatever, even one month of civil war in the 
country to which I am attached, I would sacrifice 
my life in order to do it. I say, that there is no¬ 
thing which destroys property and prosperity, and 
demoralizes character, to the degree that civil 
war does; by it, the hand of man is raised against 
his neighbour, against his brother, and against 
his father; servant betrays master, and the whole 
scene ends in confusion and disorder. Yet, my 
Lords, this is the resource to which we must have 
looked—these are the means to which we must 
have applied, in order to have put an end to this 
state of things, if we had not made the option of 
bringing forward the measures, for which I say I 
am responsible. But let us look a little further 
at this. If civil war is so bad, when it is occa¬ 
sioned by resistance to the Government—if it is 
so bad in the case I have stated, and so much to 
be avoided—how much more is it to be avoided 


24 


when we are to arm the people, in order that we 
may conquer one part of them by exciting the 
other part against them ? My Lords, I am sure 
there is not a man who hears me, whose blood 
would not shudder at such a proposition if it were 
made to him; and yet that is the resource to 
which we should be pushed at last, by continuing 
the course we have been adopting for the last 
few vears/’ 

These are sentiments which become a great 
mind and a humane heart. They are the senti¬ 
ments of wisdom and of patriotism. They shew 
that the victor of a hundred battles—the con¬ 
queror of the conqueror of Europe—was intimi¬ 
dated at the idea of doing wrong—of involving 
his country in civil war—that he was afraid of 
arming the father against the son, and the son 
against the father; that he was determined to 
avoid such a dreadful extremity; and by so fear¬ 
ing and so determining, he shewed himself a 
patriot, a statesman, and, what is infinitely greater 
than either—a CHRISTIAN. 

But it has been urged, that, putting the justice 
and expediency of Catholic emancipation out of 
the question, his Majesty’s ministers, particularly 
the Duke of Wellington, the Lord Chancellor, 
and Mr. Peel, are highly to blame for the manner 
in which they brought forward and carried that 




25 

measure. It is said, that they were under a pledge 
to the nation not to support it at all; that even 
if they had not been, that they ought to have 
given a longer notice to the country of their 
intention; and that finally, no minister ought to 
have proposed such a great change in the consti¬ 
tutional laws of the state without taking the sense 
of the people upon it, or in other words without 
dissolving the Parliament. 

I will endeavour to answer these objections 
seriatim. In the first place, then, I observe, that 
it is obvious, every minister and every legislator 
is bound by every obligation that can bind men, to 
do that, which in their conscience, they believe to 
be the most advantageous to the country at large. 
This proposition I apprehend no one will deny ; 
indeed it cannot be denied upon any just principle 
of either politics or morality. It therefore follows, 
that no legislator, or minister ought to be bound 
by any pledge, which, at the time of making, he 
believed to be perfectly consistent with the general 
proposition here laid down, but which he after¬ 
wards found was inconsistent with it. His duty 
in such a predicament is to abide by the general 
principle, and to reject the particular pledge. 
Nor is any one deceived by a man acting thus, 
because every one knows, or ought to know, that 
when a person promises to do a thing, believing 
it to be right, that he is not bound to do it, if he 


26 


afterwards find that it is wrong. This being the 
case, it follows, that the guilt or innocence of the 
ministers and legislators in question, turns upon 
the fact, as to whether they believed, that the 
granting of Catholic emancipation was necessary 
for the welfare of the country. They have so¬ 
lemnly declared, that they did believe this—that 
they had good reason to believe it, I have endea¬ 
voured to show; but independent of this latter 
consideration, we are bound to give credit to 
their declaration, because it is next to impossible 
to conceive that a Wellington, a Lyndhurst, and 
a Peel would sell ff the mighty meed of their 
large honours/’to gain the characters of promise 
breakers and betrayers of their country. There 
is, however, another, and, if possible, a greater 
consideration in favour of this conclusion. I 
allude to the vast majorities of the two houses of 
Parliament, on the question of Catholic emanci¬ 
pation. Can any one for a moment imagine— 
can any of my reverend brethren of the church be 
so uncharitable as to suppose, leaving out of the 
question individual cases, that these majorities 
were influenced by corrupt motives—that the 
ten pious and learned Prelates, who voted for 
this measure, (than whom better and more able 
men never adorned the mitre) were traitors at 
once to their church, and to their country ? 

A 9 to the next objection, namely, the giving a 


27 


longer notice of the minister’s intention to bring 
forward the question of Catholic emancipation; 
I observe that it appears to me, the cabinet, 
so far from being bound to give a longer notice 
than they did give of the measure, that they were 
absolutely bound to the contrary. The councils of 
cabinets are, or ought to be, kept secret till they 
are matured and decided upon, and then, and not 
till then, can they, under any circumstances, be 
properly brought before the legislature, or the 
public. The Duke of Wellington assured the 
House of Lords, that no time was lost after his 
Majesty’s assent to the measure was obtained; and 
independent of his grace’s word, which no one I 
should think would be inclined to dispute, we 
have the testimony of the correspondence laid 
before Parliament by the Marquis of Anglesea, 
from which we may deduce, that his Majesty was 
brought to give his assent with great difficulty. 
In that correspondence we are told, that the sub¬ 
ject was never mentioned to his Majesty without 
troubling him. 

In alluding to this circumstance, nothing can 
be further from my mind than to insinuate any 
blame to his Majesty for so acting. On the con¬ 
trary, I think, that amidst the galaxy of glory 
with which faithful history will adorn the memory 
of George the Fourth, his conduct, on the occa¬ 
sion alluded to, will perhaps shine the most tran- 


28 


scendant. As a Protestant divine, I religiously 
respect his conscientious scruples, and as a sub¬ 
ject, I love, honour, and venerate the sovereign, 
who could sacrifice his private feelings to the 
welfare of his kingdom. 

Would that those who ought to be the pro¬ 
moters of peace and good will to all men—hut 
who, from their present conduct, rather seem to 
desire to perpetuate feuds and render animosities 
immortal—would that they would follow this 
bright example of their Sovereign, and offer up 
their private feelings on the altar of national 
concord. 

And here! cannot help observing that it would 
he well for all parties, if people, when they give 
their opinions upon great political questions, 
would bear in mind the advice of Demos¬ 
thenes, as quoted by a greater man than the 
Athenian orator. Lord Bacon, with regard to 
a proposition in the House of Commons, for 
the naturalization of the Scottish nation. “It 
may please you, Mr. Speaker, preface I will make 
none, but at once put myself on your good opinion, 
neither will I hold in suspense what way I will 
choose, but now at first declare myself, that I 
mean to counsel the House to naturalize this 
nation: wherein nevertheless, I have a request to 
make unto you, which is of more efficacy to the 


29 


purpose I have in mind than all I shall say after¬ 
wards: and it is the same request which Demos¬ 
thenes did more than once in areat causes of 
estate make to the people of Athens, that f When 
they took into their hands the balls whereby to 
give their voices according as the manner of them 
w as, they would raise their thoughts and lay aside 
those considerations which their private vocations 
and degrees, might minister and represent unto 
them, and would take upon them cogitations and 
minds agreeable to the dignity and honour of 
their estate/ 

If, by charging the administration with bring¬ 
ing forward the question of Catholic emancipa¬ 
tion in a hurried, or sudden manner, it be intended 
to assert, that the people were taken by surprise, 
I deny the charge altogether. The Duke of 
Wellington, in his speech last session before the 
House of Lords on the question, shewed as clearly 
as a man could shew, that, under certain circum¬ 
stances, he was friendly to it. His grace inti¬ 
mated, that something hereafter might be done 
for the Catholics, and this intimation was the 
more extraordinary, inasmuch as no prime minis¬ 
ter had ever before held out any hopes to them. 
The anti-catholics had next a warning of what 
was coming in the speech of Mr. Dawson at 
Derry. After this, there was the conduct of Mr. 
Peel in Lancashire, where every thing was done 


30 


to draw from him some anti-catholic, or rather 
anti-emancipation sentiment, but where he re¬ 
mained studiously silent on the subject. 

But I should be glad to know for what pur¬ 
pose the opponents of concession to the Catholics 
required more time. The measure was for many 
weeks before Parliament, during which they were 
not idle in exciting the passions of the people, 
and their efforts, according to their own account, 
were crowned with no little success. If, then, 
they wished to ascertain the opinion of the coun¬ 
try, they had ample time for that purpose. If 
they wished delay for the purpose of organising 
factions, or promoting an insurrection,—they had 
not time for such objects, and it was fortunate for 
themselves and the country, that they had not. 

As to dissolving the Parliament in order to 
ascertain the sense of the country on the Catholic 
question, I shall observe in the first place, that 
such proceeding was uncalled for on any ground 
of right, or of good policy. The present House 
of Commons was elected when the cabinet was 
divided on the Catholic question, it is true, but 
the emancipationists in the government were very 
powerful, and it is well known, that the anti¬ 
catholics used the most strenuous exertions to 
return members favorable to their views. It may 
well be doubted, however, under the circum- 


31 


stances, whether if a new election had taken 
place, the anti-catholies would have gained any 
accession of strength; indeed it is my opinion, 
that they would have lost strength; for it is not 
to be supposed, that the government would not 
have exercised all that influence at elections, 
which all administrations have exercised, and, 
being united on the question of emancipation, the 
probability is, that a greater number of pro¬ 
catholics would have been returned than under a 
divided cabinet. So far as Ireland is concerned, 
there can be no doubt that, with the exception of 
one or two counties in the north, pro-catholics 
would have been returned throughout the country. 
In short, it appears to me, that the cry set up 
about not dissolving the Parliament was purely 
factious, and, that if the Parliament had been 
dissolved, the same party would have been equally 
loud in deprecating the measure. Besides, there 
can be little doubt, that such a step, under such 
circumstances, would have thrown Ireland into a 
state of insurrection, or something very like it. 

The anti-catholics appear to hold, though 
heretofore for the most part professing high tory 
notions, very democratical opinions as to the 
power or influence, which the people ought to 
exercise over the legislature. According to these 
politicians, members of Parliament are not only 
bound to act with reference to the opinions of the 


people upon any given question of importance, 
which, to a certain extent, is perfectly true, but 
that they are bound to abide by those opinions, 
which is perfectly untrue, and if acted upon, 
would be entirely subversive of all good govern¬ 
ment. For, in the first place, it is impracticable, 
if not impossible, to ascertain what the real 
opinion of the majority of the people is upon any 
given question; and in the next place, if it were 
possible, and if acted upon, the mass of the 
people, instead of their representatives, would in 
reality become the law makers, which would be 
just as absurd as a man employing a lawyer to 
conduct his cause, and then taking upon himself 
his own defence. The representatives of the 
people are, or are not more capable than the 
people themselves to conduct their affairs—if they 
are, why interfere with them ? if they are not, why 
did they elect them ? 

To judge of the character of our representa¬ 
tives as to their probity, talents, and zeal, is a 
very different thing from being able to forma cor¬ 
rect opinion of the measures subjected to their 
deliberation. In the former case, a man’s com¬ 
mon sense and experience will enable him to judge 
well ; but it requires study and great acquire¬ 
ments, and extensive knowledge, to form a sound 
opinion of political measures. 


33 


No men, in any age of the world, were better 
judges of the characters of their rulers than the 
Athenians were; and none less competent to judge 
of the measures of those rulers, either for peace 
or for war, as was exemplified in their reluctant 
resistance to Philip ; none were more censorious 
and ungrateful to their best friends, as was proved 
in their treatment of Demosthenes and others. 

Plutarch’s testimony in favour of the worth, 
integrity, and abilities of their illustrious leaders, 
contrasted with the perfidiousness, cruelty, and 
fickleness of the citizens, could not, he said, be 
exceeded in any age or country: but had Plutarch 
lived to this day, he would have altered his 
opinion, and found that not only many uninformed 
English citizens could be ungrateful to their 
best friends and rulers, but that some of those 
who live in cloisters, and who ought to devote 
their days and nights to the acquirement of know¬ 
ledge, have improved upon the worst characteris¬ 
tics of the fickle and ungenerous Athenians, as 
has been exemplified in their treatment of one 
of the ablest and most virtuous statesmen of 
our times. 

I conceive, however, that it is not necessary 
for me to defend the principle of the independence 
of representatives—a principle which has been 
hitherto allowed by all but the wildest democrats. 

c 


34 


The great Fox, whom no one could accuse of 
holding opinions adverse to popular rights, has 
shewn, that the representative is not the mere 
agent or slave of his constituents. 

j *. r . ' ' i \ 

But this srreat statesman’s observations on the 
subject are so applicable to the present question, 
that I cannot do better than quote them:— 

Mr. Fox, in answer to Mr. Dunning, in March, 
1771, said “he could not be convinced either 
that the authority of the House of Commons is 
not the best security of the national freedom, or 
that our welfare can possibly be separated from 
the welfare of the public. 

f / < • * • f ■ - . ' " * * r 

“The honourable gentleman is pleased to say, 
that the voice of this house is not the voice of 
the people; and he sets the language of clamour 
without doors in opposition to our deliberations, 
as if we were not especially appointed by the 
constitution the only revealers of the national 
mind —the only judges of what ought to he the 
sentiments of the kingdom. It may possibly 
appear strange that a representative of the people 
should not deem it more meritorious, to comply 
with the wishes of his constituents, than to counter¬ 
act them; and it may possibly be urged that it is 
his duty, upon all occasions, to act in conformity 
to those wishes, however repugnant they may 


i • 


be to the sense of his own convictions. I will 
not differ with the honourable gentleman about 
the idea he annexes to the term 'people;* I 
will allow, for argument’s sake, that nine-tenths 
of the people are at this moment in opposition to 
to government, but I will at the same time insist 
that we have higher obligations to justice than to 
our constituents. We are chosen the delegates 
of the British electors, for salutary, not for per¬ 
nicious purposes—to guard, not to invade the 
constitution — to keep the privileges of every free¬ 
man we represent, as much within their proper 
limits, as to control any unwarrantable exertion 
of the royal authority. We are bound to promote 
their true interests, in preference to the dearest 
desires of their hearts, and the constitution makes 
us the sole arbiters of those interests , notwith¬ 
standing the imaginary infallibility of the people. 

“ Shall we sacrifice our reason, our honour, 
our conscience, because the people desire it, or 
for fear of incurring the popular resentment; and 
while we are appointed to watch over the Hes¬ 
perian fruit of liberty with a dragon's eye be 
ourselves the only slaves of the whole commu¬ 
nity? The honourable gentleman will tell me 
that nothing but the soul of absurdity could 
suspect the people of a design against their own 
happiness. I do not suspect the people of any 
such design; but I suspect their capacity to 

c 2 


judge of their true happiness. I know the 
people are equally credulous and uninformed. 
No doctrine was ever yet broached, either so 
dangerous or so ridiculous, as that which seri¬ 
ously insists that the House of Commons, because 
elected is with out jurisdiction ,—and that the peo¬ 
ple, because the origin of all power , must there¬ 
fore be exempt from all obedience. The people 
make the laws as well as the legislature. It is 
urged that the House of Commons, as the crea¬ 
tures of the people, have no right whatever to 
exercise an authority over their constituents. 
This position breathes the spirit of freedom 
with a vengeance, for it lays the axe to the 
root of all subordination at once, and puts an 
entire end to the whole constitution of govern¬ 
ment. The people after solemnly forming a 
compact of civil liberty, are not to launch out 
into the barbarism of their natural state. What 
acquaintance have the people at large with the 
arcana of political rectitude—with the connec¬ 
tions of kingdoms—the abilities of ministers, or 
even with their own dispositions? At the period 
of the Revolution, patriotism itself acknow¬ 
ledges we icere saved, yet our glorious deliverer 
was scarcely seated on the throne when the peo¬ 
ple began to consider him an enemy to the 
constitution. In every succeeding reign it was 
asserted we were destroyed, and we have now 
reached the abyss of destruction. The people 


37 


have the power of electing their representatives; 
yet you see they constantly abuse that power, and 
appoint those as guardians of their dearest rights 
whom they accuse of conspiring against the 
interests of their country. It is the duty of the 
people to choose us; it is ours to act constitu¬ 
tionally, and to maintain the independence of 
Parliament. I stand up for the constitution, not 
for the people; if the people attempt to invade 
the constitution, they are enemies to the nation. 
I will not be a rebel to my King, my country, or 
my own heart, for the loudest huzzas of the 
multitude/* 

^ I 

Taking these things into consideration, I think 
I may lay it down as an incontrovertible maxim, 
that the great duty of a statesman or legislator , 
the duty into which all other obligations merge, is 
that of acting in such a way as he conscientiously 
believes will be most conducive to the welfare of 
the state. 

I now come to the consideration of the case of 
those members of the House of Commons, who 
were under what is called a promise to their con¬ 
stituents to vote against Catholic emancipation; 
but who, nevertheless, conceived it to be their 
duty to vote in favour of that measure; and my 
object is to prove, that such members cannot justly 
be accused of breaking their promises. For the 


38 


sake, however, of brevity and perspicuity, I will 
confine myself to the single case of the Solicitor 
General, Sir Nicholas C. Tindal, and I think I 
shall be able to prove to my brother electors of 
the University of Cambridge, that the conduct of 
their representative, with regard to the Catholic 
question, was not inconsistent with the most per¬ 
fect good faith. I propose to prove this from 
the authority of their own book, Paley, as well 
as from a much higher authority—the principles 
of morality and sound policy. 

“Men,’' says Paley, ff act from expectation; 
expectation is in most cases determined by the 
assurances and engagements which we receive 
from others. Confidence, therefore, in promises, 
is essential to the intercourse of human life; 
because without it, the greatest part of our 
conduct would proceed from chance.” 

Now it is evident from what is here laid down, 
that the expectation excited by the promiser in 
the mind of the promisee, constitutes the essence 
of the obligation of the promise. To use the 
words of Paley himself, “the obligation depends 
upon the expectations which we knowingly and 
willingly excite.’' 

The Solicitor General, previous to his being 
returned for the University of Cambridge, pro- 


39 


\ 


mised that he would vote against Catholic eman¬ 
cipation, or in other words, he declared that he 
was unfriendly to that measure,—that he thought 
it would not be conducive to the welfare of the 
state.* Now Sir Nicholas Tindal could not 

* I have conceded to the adversaries of the Solicitor 
General, that he did promise to vote against Catholic eman¬ 
cipation; without, however, either affirming or denying the 
fact, for in reality I know nothing on the subject. But be 
this as it may, it is obvious, that what is called by them a 
promise could amount to nothing more than a declaration of 
his opinions upon that particular question. It is idle to talk 
about a candidate giving an unconditional pledge to his 
electors, to do any thing except his general duty as a 
representative, and, therefere, all his pledges upon particular 
points must be taken as mere declarations of his belief, that 
such pledges are consistent with such general duty. If, 
however, he afterwards find, that they are not consistent 
with his duty as a representative, he does right in rejecting 
them, for a representative is not to be directed by the 
opinions of his constituents, but by his own. Besides, how 
could a member ascertain, whether or not his constituents 
had not also changed tbeir opinions upon the subject of his 
promises or declarations. I may be told, that like Mr. Peel, 
the Solicitor General ought to have resigned his seat. This 
I deny. While 1 cannot but admire the motives which led 
the Home Secretary to take that step, yet l consider it as 
ill judged, and forming a most pernicious example—an 
example which, if generally followed, would reduce that 
portion of the representatives of the people returned by 
boroughs into the mere tools of those who happened to 
possess a certain degree of influence over the electors. In 
the nature of things such persons will always possess too 


40 





excite by this promise or declaration an idea in 
the minds of rational men,, that he would vote 
against emancipation, even if he found that he 
had formed a wrong opinion of it, or if such cir¬ 
cumstances should arise as to render it expedient, 
that he should sacrifice his private feeling to the 
welfare of his country, because all must know, 
that no man ought to be bound by a promise 
to continue in error, any more than he ought to 
be bound by a promise to continue in crime. 
Indeed, by continuing in error after we are con¬ 
vinced of our error, we do in fact become crimi¬ 
nal in the eyes of the Almighty.* Now, as the 

much influence over members, without establishing the 
factious principle, that it is the duty of a representative, 
whenever he conscientiously changes his opinion, to vacate 
liis seat. Besides, without an evasion of the law, no man 
can vacate his seat—the doing so, therefore, is clearly 
unconstitutional. Nobody will pretend to say, that the 
accepting of the Stew ardship of the Chiltern Hundreds is in 
reality accepting a place under the crown, the only course 
by which a seat can be vacated. 

* Highly as I reverence the name of Paley, and greatly 
as I respect his almost incomparable talents, I nevertheless 
cannot assent to several principles which he has laid down 
in his “ Moral and Political Philosophy.” I would instance 
one on this question of promises. Paley says, “ It is the 
performance being unlawful, and not unlawfulness in the 
subject or motive of the promise, which destroys its validity; 
therefore a bribe, after the vote is given—the wages of 
prostitution—the reward of any crime, after the crime is 


I 


41 


obligation of a promise arises out of the expecta¬ 
tion, which that promise excites in the mind of the 

committed—ought, if promised, to be paid. For the sin 
and mischief, by this supposition, are over; and will be 
neither more nor less for the performance of the promise.” 

Now, in my humble opinion, in point of morality, there 
is no difference between the unlawfulness of the subject or 
motive ol the promise, and the unlawfulness of the perform¬ 
ance of the promise itself. And if this be the case, the 
performance of an unlawful promise is, under all circum¬ 
stances, equally unlawful. Or in other words, I think it is 
evident, that if A offers to B a sum of money to commit a 
crime, and if, after B has committed the crime, A, instead 
of repenting and endeavouring to make restitution to society 
for the evil he has done it, gives the wages of sin to B, he 
does that which is unlawful; for on the contrary supposition, 
it is the duty of a man under certain circumstances to 
continue in crime. It is true, that if A take the advantage 
of B’s crime, and do not repent of the wrong which he 
hath done, that he becomes a greater sinner by refusing to 
perform his promise to B. But the sin and mischief, as 
Paley affirms, is not over after the commission of a crime, 
under the circumstances which he supposes; for the reward¬ 
ing of a criminal pampers and encourages his evil propen¬ 
sities, and renders him more liable to sin again. One of 
the greatest checks upon evil doing is the maxim that the 
wicked are not to be trusted—that their faith with one 
another is not to be depended upon. The sentiment of 
honour among thieves is as false in point of fact, as it is 
pernicious in point of principle. All experience proves, 
that there is little or no honour among thieves, and God 
forbid that there ever should. Yet the language of Paley 
would lead us to suppose, that honour among thieves would 
not be injurious either to the interests of society, or of 


promisee, and as no elector of the University of 
Cambridge had a right to expect, that when Sir 


morality! I will, howover, go further, and affirm generally, 
that the keeping of faith with criminals, with regard to their 
crimes, is injurious to society, inasmuch as it has a ten¬ 
dency to encourage crime. Bank robberies, for instance, 
would rarely or never take place, could not the robbers 
trust to faith being kept with them. But I do not mean to 
say, that it is right to promise a criminal impunity from 
punishment, with the intention of breaking faith with him. 
This, however, I do mean to say, that it is not lawful to 
make such a promise at all to a criminal, and if the promise 
be unlawful, the fulfilment of it is, at any rate unlawful, if 
not equally unlawful—for it is the duty of every man to 
repent him of his errors, as soon as he is convinced of them, 
and to amend his ways. But let us try the question on the 
principles of Scripture, which unfortunately Paley did not 
in all cases sufficiently adhere to. It is obvious, upon these 
principles, that if “the wages of sin” be paid, as Paley 
asserts they ought to be, such payment would bring down, 
both upon the promiser and promisee, the penalty of death, 
denounced in Scripture against all that are sin’s servants 
and do sin’s work. 

Gifts may be made subsequently to the commission of 
crime upon a different principle, viz. that of repentance— 
atonement to the party corrupted, and of compassion and 
charity—as a means of their present subsistence, and in the 
hope of amendment and future recovery from sin; for 
Charity “ beareth all things , believeth all things , hopeth all 
things: Charity never faileth .” 1 Ep. Cor. xiii. 7. 

In acting upon this principle, we shall preserve our Chris¬ 
tian feeling and practice, without compromising the rigid 
rules of justice, morality, and religion, because we have a 
higher authority than Paley for knowing that “ the wages of 


43 


Nicholas Tindal promised to vote against Catho¬ 
lic emancipation, he would do so, even if he after¬ 
wards became convinced that he was wrong, it 
follows, therefore, that if we believe he was so 
convinced, or if we believe, that he thought, by 
withholding emancipation, the state would sus¬ 
tain a greater injury than by granting it—it neces¬ 
sarily follows, I repeat, that he cannot be justly 
accused of having violated his promise. Besides, 
as Paley justly observes,a man is bound only to 
satisfy the expectation which he intended to ex¬ 
cite ; whatever condition, therefore, he intended 
to subject that expectation to, becomes an essen¬ 
tial condition of the promise.” 

But the question arises as to the sincerity of 
Sir Nicholas Tindal—as to whether he voted in 
favour of Catholic emancipation from honest, or 
corrupt motives; that he had good reasons for 
acting as he has done, we have endeavoured to 
shew; and when a man does that which is right, 
it is most uncharitable to suppose, that he does it 
from corrupt motives. After all, however, this 
part of the question turns principally upon the 
■character of Sir Nicholas—-and, I believe, I 
may safely affirm, that that character is such as 
will not justify any man in doubting his word. 

sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life ,"—the former 
is deserved—the latter comes by grace and favour. 



44 


He has said, that he believed a superior obliga¬ 
tion had arisen, and we are bound to believe him. 
He may, indeed, though acquitted of acting cor¬ 
ruptly, be accused of acting unwisely, or from 
unfounded apprehensions, but that is altogether 
another question. That his apprehensions, how¬ 
ever, were not unfounded, there is good reason to 
think, even from the single circumstance of so 
many lords and commoners having changed their 
opinions on this very subject; for to suppose that 
the legislators alluded to were all either knaves 
or fools, would be a most factious and unwarrant¬ 
able supposition, and one which the University of 
Cambridge could never for a moment entertain. 

To me, the clamour set up against Mr. Peel 
and the Solicitor General appears most extra¬ 
ordinary and most uncalled for; and I cannot 
help suspecting the purity of their motives, 
who are thus loud in their abuse. Judging 
from their own hearts, they seem incapable of 
understanding how a man can incur the odium of 
the vulgar—an odium, which always follows a 
change of opinion in public men, without sup¬ 
posing, that that change was the result of corrup¬ 
tion. Some of the wisest and most virtuous men 
that ever lived have seen cause to change their 
opinion upon great political questions; and with 
respect to Catholic emancipation, we have two 
instances, in the illustrious persons of his Majesty 


45 


and the heir presumptive of the crown, which 
ought to have silenced the tongue of malignity 
itself. But, to use the apt remark of Mr. Croker, 
it may be truly said of many of the opponents of 
this measure, that they are not only [Aocvrsi; Kzx'Jjv 
but are pdvrsig xccxo )—not merely prophets of evil 
but evil prophets. 

But it may be said that Sir Nicholas Tindal 
ought to have resigned his seat when he found 
that he could no longer conscientiously vote in. 
the way that he had promised. This I deny; it 
being a doctrine which, if acted upon, would 
reduce our representatives “who are the only 
revealers of the national mind—the only judges 
of what ought to be the sentiments of the king¬ 
dom/' to the mere character of agents, or rather 
of soldiers, whose duty it is to yield implicit obedi¬ 
ence to those who command them: in short, as Fox 
has observed, it would make those “who are ap¬ 
pointed to watch over the Hesperian fruit of liber¬ 
ty with a dragon's eye, the only slaves of the 
whole community." Sir Nicholas Tindal would 
no doubt have gained a vast deal of popularity 
by resigning his seat; but he acted more justly, 
more wisely, more patriotically,—he preferred 
the interest of his country to the loud huzzas of 
the populace; and he nobly and bravely did his 
duty as a representative of the nation, in defiance 
of the scoffs and jeers of the vulgar, the unin¬ 
formed, and the malignant. 


46 


Leaving*, however, all the above considerations 
out of the question. Sir Nicholas Tindal was 
justified upon another ground, in voting in favour 
of Catholic emancipation. — '‘Promises,” says 
Paley, “are not binding, which ar e released by 
the promisee and had not then the representa¬ 
tive of the University of Cambridge good reason 
to believe that he was released from his promise 
to the electors by a change in the opinion of 
those electors, relative to Catholic emancipation ? 
They refused to petition against this measure, 
thereby intimating that they relied upon the wis¬ 
dom of Parliament,—that they had confidence in 
the measures of government; under such cir¬ 
cumstances, it appears to me, that Sir Nicholas 
Tindal was released from his promise, and, pro¬ 
viding such promise could have bound him to 
have acted against his opinions (which it could 
not), he was left at liberty to follow his own 
unshackled judgment. 

♦ . i • „ ... - 

I have now concluded what I intended to say; 
but before taking leave of the public, I would 
recommend to the consideration of those oppo¬ 
nents of emancipation, whose angry feelings have 
not yet subsided, the following admirable obser¬ 
vations, on a recent occasion, of Mr. Clay, the 
late Chief Secretary of state of the United States 
of North America. 

"We have, fellow citizens, just terminated a 


47 


I 


long, arduous, and embittered contest. It raged 
with a violence which we ought to hope will not 
be often exhibited. During its continuance, so¬ 
ciety was shook to its centre, and the most intimate 
ties of connexion were rent asunder. The will of 
the majority has been expressed, and the will of 
the majority should be respected. Unless we 
mean to perpetuate feuds, and render immortal 
animosities excited in the heat of the struggle, it 
should be the wish and the aim of all to tranquil¬ 
lize society, and to restore its harmony, after the 
decision of the majority has been fairly pro¬ 
nounced. This effort to heal wounds and re¬ 
unite brethren, who have been separated by pas¬ 
sion or misconception is perfectly consistent with 
the duty of watching, in future, over our rulers, 
and of bringing their measures to the standard of 
reason. ” 


Warwick, May, 1829. 


FINIS. 


( 


LONDON : 

W. MOLINEUX, ROLLS EUILDINGS, FETTER LANE. 






















* JH\ /h ^^ A V * 

o 

° c*> ^ o * aV^, 

* '£\ v> H/ -va. \K * a» As. 

' .. * »0 ^ '».** A <* * 

,0^ ,- 1 '/. V ,- o . 


* .0 k t * c J/* "c> c°"°* ^ 

/JIJ^ w : 

*° A & 

V o *,. n ° cv ^ . * a 1 



o 

* 1 

<L «* o 

* <t? o 

r.A' 6 * V ■-... 
o* , • 1 '„* - V 

vj> 


H°o 





' 'VVJVVO^s* " 

*& **"'•' ^ o "‘o';o>‘ o° 

*?' > v' - s **' ~ ^ 

^ <£ ->Va° ^ ♦-! 

a : -SE“ **v \ 

° * * “ <V *'*•*' .(A & 'o. ?* A <V ^TV * 1 

>* aJ 4 °*„ *#, . 0 * ,• '’•- * 0 , V 5 > o»““. 

»\ v A\V r.^ * V. c * j*V 7 ^a’ ° 







/V <\ v - 

V V „ M „ 







ay <* ■ ^ v 



13 

'«£* oV» -* A^' *'$*. "• EliPf' *° ,V > ^vfY ° 

°* '*•*' <► A/.T' g * % -.... A <. . 

Y °o ^ Y c o^ t --* % V A 


'afi* ^O K* 

*w < 07 *, 

:> * » ^ 

r« r\ ^ 

AT • ' * " 

<r ,v a> •e- a . 

, . -iw /A . * * . 



A q, 





. *. 

'>* \. 

r,V u / g <* 

U t * _♦ O 



%> 

Y> *’<•'* oa” 

^> v <* 

^ ^ /k° ^ a^ 

cY «. dV ,/u ~ ' x 


v * o 




O • k 



*$» y-^ 

VA 


*1 C> 

A? vA 

/ <*> cy % 

AV ^ * o - 0 

V <V> a 0 * 

' ^ A 2 * A 

vPy * 




O 

C </> * 

,c? v/\ 

A> <. V-T-* 6 * V' 

a 4 * .‘:;*v *+ f0 * . • - *. v 

* "7, v * J^VT/zV 2 ? "* '-'' 

u, A v ^!U//X^ * 

. ^ 0 



A q* 

A v ^C> « 

* NA _ j> 

’ <Y o o> 

A ‘»-»° Ar 

V s 5 **'* o x ,0^ , 








. o *° r %. yIP*^'" $ °A ''®'’ *-° 

a0 •!*«- > . 

«* ^ ^ 


5 ?»* • 



\. " ‘ ’ ^' ! ' 

> V 4 »' 

« 

* aS v ^a. 0 

• • * A G % ‘ 

C° °o 


^° * 


•1°, 


- ZSZT~ 



.0 




LMa 74 



i0 •••”- > v* »*VC/* <a ,o^ . 

:A£k\ ^ ^ «' 

/ /" \ '° 9 W : V 



INDIANA 




O * A 


A 


_a o'. n v •'■'** ' o <s> ,o" 0j> <c> 

R- 't'. . C *VvT%,V ^ .VrfSSW. 


, ■ <\ a 

^ , 0 22 ° „ \P, 























